Friday, April 04, 2008
The Myth of Mahatma Ghandi
November 28, 2000Written By: Velu Annamalai, Ph.D.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. might have heard the word of non-violence from Gandhi, but it is certain that Dr. King did not know the true colors of Mr. Gandhi. From the beginning to the end, M.K. Gandhi was loyal to imperialism. The Western news media and their Indian allies by a massive propaganda exercise created the illusion of sainthood around Gandhi and made people believe that he fought Apartheid in
, and in the process of doing so developed a new method of non-violent struggle called satyagraha. Nothing is farther from the truth. Gandhi, for the major part of his life, worshipped British imperialism and too often proudly proclaimed himself a lover of the Empire. He was Kipling's Gunga Din in flesh and blood. South Africa
To understand Gandhi's politics in
, it is essential to note the three fundamental trends which all along persisted underneath all his activities. They were: South Africa
(1) his loyalty to the
(2) his apathy with regard to the Indian "lower castes",
's indigenous population, and India
(3) his virulent anti-African racism.
Gandhi was once thrown out of a train compartment, which was reserved exclusively for the Whites. It was not that Gandhi was fighting on behalf of the local Africans that he broke the rule in getting into a Whites' compartment. No! that was not the reason. Gandhi was so furious that he and his merchant caste Indians (Banias) were treated on par with the local Africans. This is the real reason for his fighting race discrimination in
, and he had absolutely no concern about the pitiable way the Africans were treated by the Whites. South Africa
On June 2, 1906 he commented in the Indian Opinion that "Thanks to the Court's decision, only clean Indians (meaning upper caste Hindu Indians) or colored people other than Kaffirs, can now travel in the trains."
During the `Kaffir Wars' in
he was a regular Gunga Din, who volunteered to organize a brigade of Indians to put down the Zulu uprising and was decorated himself for valor under fire. South Africa
Gandhi said on September 26, 1896 about the African people: "Ours is one continued struggle sought to be inflicted upon us by the Europeans, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness."
Again in an editorial on the Natal Municipal Corporation Bill, in the Indian Opinion of March 18, 1905, Gandhi wrote: "Clause 200 makes provision for registration of persons belonging to uncivilized races (meaning the local Africans), resident and employed within the Borough.
One can understand the necessity of registration of Kaffirs who will not work, but why should registration be required for indentured Indians...?" Again on September 9, 1905, Gandhi wrote about the local Africans as: "in the majority of cases it compels the native to work for at least a few days a year" (meaning that the locals are lazy).
Nothing could be farther from the truth that Gandhi fought against Apartheid, which many propagandists in later years wanted people to believe.
He was all in favor of continuation of White domination and the oppression of Blacks in
. South Africa
In the Indian Opinion of March 25, 1905, Gandhi wrote on a Bill regulating fire-arms: "In the instance of fire-arms, the Asiatic has been most improperly bracketed with the natives. The British Indian does not need any such restrictions as are imposed by the Bill on the natives regarding the carrying of fire-arms. The prominent race can remain so by preventing the native from arming himself. Is there the slightest vestige of justification for so preventing the British Indians?"
Gandhi always advised Indians not to align with other political groups in either colored or African communities. He was strongly opposed to the commingling of races.
In the Indian Opinion of September 4, 1904, Gandhi wrote: "Under my suggestion, the Town Council (of
) must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians I must confess I feel most strongly. It think it is very unfair to the Indian population, and it is an undue tax on even the proverbial patience of my countrymen." Johannesburg
In the Indian Opinion of September 24, 1903, Gandhi said: "We believe as much in the purity of races as we think they (the Whites) do... by advocating the purity of all races."
Again on December 24, 1903, in the Indian Opinion Gandhi stated that: "so far as British Indians are concerned, such a thing is particularly unknown. If there is one thing which the Indian cherishes more than any other, it is purity of type."
When he was fighting on behalf of Indians, he was not fighting for all the Indians, but only for his rich merchant class upper caste Hindus!
In the Anglo-Boer War of 1899, Gandhi, in spite of his own belief that truth was on the side of the Boers, formed an ambulance unit in support of the British forces. He was very earnest about taking up arms and laying down his life for his beloved Queen. He led his men on to the battlefield and received a War Medal.
Gandhi joined in the orgy of Zulu slaughter when the Bambata Rebellion broke out. One needs to read the entire history of Bambata Rebellion to place Gandhi's nazi war crimes in its proper perspective.
Shall not eat (drink) blood:
This is a practice that the local pagans took part in, and so God pointed out the importance of the blood both in its sacrificial status (ultimately leading to Jesus’ sacrifice) as well as making a distinction between the Jewish Nation and its pagan neighbors... who are still neighbors and still drinking blood. After viewing the above video, take a look at this one:
If that doesn’t make you contemplate the differences between a civilized culture and a “no-culture” culture, what will? Last but not least there is this video:
Being that this kid is a zombie... I wonder if he would choose slaughtered turtle over living turtles? The question will remain unanswered I am sure.
Clowns to the Left of Me, Jokers to the Right
-- No... Really!
I had to comment on a story from WND that got me thinking this: are the Democrats crazy! Obviously this question can be asked of both parties from time to time, but this constant flow of info on a Democrat that is running for the highest office in the land and the choices he has made in regards to whom he surrounds himself with and his apparent love for socialism (this last defect I would apply to Hillary as well... she just doesn’t have a theology for such beliefs – here I am speaking about Liberation Theology – to support her secularist ideals) is bewildering!!!
At any rate, these are the few items that caught my eye:
So socialism has inspired him? Maybe Lenin will come to him in a vision and support him like Jane “
His pastor visited
There were riots in
Thanks Gore... you eco-fascist.
Thanks Gore... you eco-fascist.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
One site has this info:
James 5:14 read: “Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.”
Do not let this verse pass you by so easily. We know where the church in Jerusalem was, we have found an anointing jar from that first church, so rest assured that most likely this small vase pictured above was actually handled by the Apostles as well as Jesus' half-brother. Peter mentions David in Acts 1, quoting David in the Psalms, and then Peter mentions David again and quoting him again in chapter 2.
Acts 1:16 & 2:25-29 reads:
“Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas....
....For David says concerning Him:
“Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.
The word translated “with us” can be translated before us. It is interesting that the Essenes (Jews) were in control in that day of the Tomb of David and the upper room was above that, the pieces of the Messianic puzzle start to fit together, and the symbol displayed here starts to make more and more sense as one realizes that for the first few decades the only coverts to “Christianity” were ethnic Jews as well as Hellenized Jews, thus, Messianic Judaism was the name of the game then. Only until there was a split between the still orthodox Jews (Pharisees/Sadducees) and the newly formed and still tolerated Messianic Jews (mainly Essenes and some from the other sects) about allowing uncircumcised persons into the Jewish custom is when the true cover-up and intolerance began.
Later the mutual wanting to cover up the fact that Christianity was really based in deep Jewish history and ritual was implemented by both the Jews whom survived the
This symbol is the key (of sorts) to healing the long rift between brothers and should invigorate those who want to know and enjoy the true history of our faith and look forward to our Jewish Savior (Yahshua HaMashiach) being reunited not only with what we assume to be his body, but with His chosen people/nation again. I long for that day when the Jewish land will be truly inhabited again by all the Messianic Jews of old to this day.
Small Portion of a large debate, also below:
Play all 14-snippits from this debate the above is taken from.
This is thanks to Michelle Malkin.
Below is another imported article from Jill Stanek's Pro-Life website:
I have received a series of emails from a man who tried to correspond with Fr. Michael Pfleger on his support of Obama for president....
Pfleger is an infamous Chicago Catholic priest, a white guy pastoring at a south side black church, St. Sabina's. No one can touch Pflger because his people there love him and because he does do some good.
In 2003 I was part of a pro-life picket when Pfleger invited pro-abort Al Sharpton to speak from the pulpit during Mass one Sunday.
Last year Pfleger had Louis Farrakhan in to speak.
Also last year Pfleger, while demontrating outside a Chicago gun shop with Jesse Jackson, threatened, "We're going to snuff out [shop owner] John Riggio. We're going to snuff out legislators that are voting against our gun laws." He got in trouble for that one.
And no surprise, Pfleger supports Obama and has for a long time. He said last January, "I think Barack Obama is in a class of his own. I think he is the best thing that has come across the political scene since Bobby Kennedy...."
As you can see above, Pfleger has also contributed to Obama. And here was his response when my email friend wrote him about Obama's support of live birth abortion among many other afronts to the Bible:
First, let’s listen to Harry Reid on trying to explain how our system is a voluntary tax system verses a forced one. After watching Harry Reid BS us for some time, I want you to follow the two analogies to show in better detail why our system is anything but voluntary.
Consent of the Governed
A great analogy that explains the dilemma of our “redistribution program” here in
Our government, as our Constitution says, derives its powers “from the consent of the governed.” The idea here is that we cannot and should not ask the government to do anything for us that we cannot legally or morally do for ourselves. Sounds logical, doesn’t it? With that premise in mind, lets build the following scenario.
You live in a triplex. You are in apartment No. 1, Johnson is in apartment No. 2, and
You believe that
Good for you. What a guy!
A month later
You decide to visit Johnson in apartment No. 2 to see if he can chip in. Johnson tells you that, while he certainly understands the seriousness of
You make the determination that it is far more important for
“Do you have the right to pull out a gun and point it right at the middle of Johnson’s forehead? Can you use that gun to compel Johnson to hand over a few hundred dollars for Wilson's care, and then tell Johnson that you’ll be back for more next month?”
Obviously, when put like this, you won’t run into too many people who will tell you that they have the right to take Johnson's money by force and give it to
- “Well, if our government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, how can you ask your government to do something for you that, if you did it for yourself, would be a crime? Why would it not be OK for you to take that money from Johnson by force and give it to Wilson, but it would be perfectly OK with you if the government went ahead and did it?”
Last time I checked, IRS agents were armed.
Another way to put this is an example from J. Budziszewski’s book, The Revenge of Conscience: Politics and the Fall of Man: On a dark street, a man draws a knife and demands my money for drugs.
- Instead of demanding my money for drugs, he demands it for the Church.
- Instead of being alone, he is with a bishop of the Church who act as bagman.
- Instead of drawing a knife, he produces a policeman who says I must do as he says.
- Instead of meeting me on the street, he mails me his demand as an official agent of the government.
If the first is theft, it is difficult to see why the other four are not also theft.
Is the redistribution of money paid by me to other people theft or not? Is it part of a constitutional republic, or more in line with a socialistic/communist frame of government?